
In mid December 2016 Sfbike.org (SanFrancisco Bike Coaltion) issued a warning regarding how Uber autonomously driving cars make right turns. At nearly the same time Uber has de-camped from CA (see e.g. this 12/22/2016 article from recode), literally loading their fleet onto car carriers and driving them to…. Arizona! The decision was based on CA’s regulatory environment for autonomously-driven cars; Uber decided they didn’t want to pursue special permitting which the CA DMV said was required, whereas Arizona has no special permitting required — so long as there’s a live driver sitting in the driver’s seat. More about Uber, below.
That’s all very interesting, but ultimately just a side-show. How are drivers of vehicles supposed to make a right turn? Below will list both the Arizona rules (ARS), as well as the Uniform Vehicle code (UVC) and since sfbike brought it up, the California laws (CVC) are also included, since they have an interesting additions.
Required position and method of turning
The basic rule is pretty simple:
The driver of a vehicle intending to turn shall do so as follows:
1. Right turns. Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
UVC §11-601 — Required position and method of turning
The driver of a vehicle intending to turn shall do so as follows:
(a) Right turns — Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
CVC 22100. Except as provided in Section 22100.5 or 22101, the driver of any vehicle intending to turn upon a highway shall do so as follows:
(a) Right Turns. Both the approach for a right-hand turn and a right-hand turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except…
We see that ARS and UVC are verbatim copies, and that CA is operatively identical because the added exceptions aren’t relevant… All three contain the identical operative phrase “Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway”. The astute reader will notice that the phrasing is identical to the bicyclist FTR (Far to The Right) law, e.g. in Arizona, §28-815A.
Drivers of vehicles violate this law all the time; this is irrespective of the presence or absence of any bicyclists or of the existence of a bicycle lane. It is simply more convenient to not move to the far-right. It is easily one of the most-violated laws. It is considered normative to violate this law, similar to the way not making a complete stop is considered okay.
Whenever there is any excess width in a lane, drivers tend to make the right from the left part of their lane, this allows them to execute the turn faster than they would otherwise be able to. This has safety implications because anyone who might be crossing a driveway or crossing the street will tend to suffer more severe injuries of a collision results, whereas at slower speeds the collision is less severe or can be avoided entirely.
Bike Lanes
Definition per MUTCD: Bicycle Lane—a portion of a roadway that has been designated for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists by pavement markings and, if used, signs.

When there is not a dedicated right-turn only lane (RTOL), the addition of a designated bike lane complicates matters considerably. (See sidenotes, below; and also see guidance from ITE guide, also below)
The complication stems from placing a lane of through-going traffic, the bike lane, to the right of a lane of traffic which is permitted to turn right. It should be noted that this configuration would NEVER be permitted for two general-purpose lanes of traffic, yet for whatever reason, it’s considered okay to configure bike lanes this way. (for a similar graphic, updated for cycle tracks, see comment below)
So, when a driver is preparing to turn right adjacent to a bicycle lane, what are they supposed to do?
Essentially, the bike lane is constructed between the lane the driver is driving in (the right lane, if there’s more than one available), and the “right-hand curb or edge of the roadway”. However…
ARS §28-815D. A person shall not operate, stop, park or leave standing a vehicle in a path or lane designated as a bicycle path or lane by a state or local authority except in the case of emergency or for crossing the path or lane to gain access to a public or private road or driveway.
UVC (can’t find any explicit prohibition on driving in a bike lane, there are a couple of generic prohibitions)
CVC 21209. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207 except as follows:
…(3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection.
CVC 21717. Whenever it is necessary for the driver of a motor vehicle to cross a bicycle lane that is adjacent to his lane of travel to make a turn, the driver shall drive the motor vehicle into the bicycle lane prior to making the turn and shall make the turn pursuant to Section 22100.
.
So, in Arizona and just about everywhere (see Oregon, below) a driver of a vehicle adjacent to a bike lane may “cross” the lane in order to reach their destination; they, however, are prohibited from “operating” in the bike lane (in Arizona, anyway 28-815D). All at the same time, they must also somehow comply with the method of turning, which requires the approach and turn be made from as far right as practicable. Kind of vague.
California, on the other hand, is one of a tiny handful of states (MN is another, see 169.19) that offers specific guidance as to how to actually legally accomplish the task. CA being extraordinarily specific, both allowing (an exemption in 21209) and requiring (21717) driving/merging into a bicycle lane by right-turning motorists within 200 feet. The MN law is similar but less specific, no mention of how many feet.
This is all very interesting, but as a practical matter by my observation, the law is widely ignored in CA; as mentioned above the basic rule is ignored by drivers in all states nearly all the time.
Finally, here’s a good illustration of the problems that arise when riding in a BL on intersection approach that’s to the right of a lane from which traffic can turn right:
…
Sidenote #1 about Bike Lanes: per MUTCD 9C.04: “Standard: A through bicycle lane shall not be positioned to the right of a right turn only lane or to the left of a left turn only lane.”
Sidenote #2: when a BL is to the left of a RTOL, the right-hook issue becomes irrelevant, because there is no conflict at the intersection — the conflict is simply comes earlier. A potential criss-cross problem arises.
Advice for Bicyclists
The threat of a right-hook collision is a serious safety risk for bicyclists; e.g. in Tuscon there have been three fatalities in the past 3 years involving right hooks, all in bike lanes.

When riding straight through, bicyclists are at heightened risk for a right-hook conflict anytime there is any excess width, be that a bike lane, or even just a moderately wide travel lane; and don’t forget: this extra risk exists any place a right turn is possible, not just at intersections.
See e.g. Right Hook at iamtraffic.org Behaviors and Risks , or commuteorlando.com for advice on how to mitigate the conflicts.
There is a continuing, fundamental denial about the right-hook problem that placing a BL next to the curb at intersections (or driveways) — see e.g. this cbc article where a cyclist “says he was cycling in the bike lane on Belmont Avenue last week when a driver tried to turn into a parking lot and hit him. ‘I think he just didn’t expect me to be beside him,’ he said, adding he wasn’t sure if the car was signaling or not because his bike was directly beside the car”; the cyclist who was “involved in four collisions over three years while cycling” wants something along the lines of additional infrastructure, like a “protected” bike lane since standard BLs, as he has found out the hard way, aren’t really helping him… but it’s not really possible to “protect” every intersection and driveway.
Research into Right-hooks (#research)
Special signals: e.g. Leading Bicyclist Interval (LBI), compare to LPI, Leading Pedestrian Interval. The problems caused by the inherent conflict of right-turning traffic to the left of through traffic (the bicyclist) can, in theory, be addressed with — wait for it — more engineering. Thus bicyclist-specific signals can be added to control who goes when. See recent, April 2018, NITC/TREC (prepared for US DOT) final report Addressing Bicycle-Vehicle Conflicts with Alternate Signal Control Strategies.
Portland and Bike Boxes:
City Finds Bike Boxes May Actually Increase Crashes “What appears to be leading to the new crashes in that people are biking through the intersection faster, overtaking cars that are turning right“. It also contains a very detailed report on a right-hook of Kathryn Rickson, who was killed in 2012 at an intersection with a bike box on SW 3rd and Madison in Portland. This particular crash involved a green light; and the report determined the bicyclist overtook a semi-truck after it had begun the turn.
Where motorists are looking; This citylab article speaks of research the resumed and tracked where motorists were looking when making a right-hand turn; it was conducted by Univ of Toronto, I don’t find any links to the original paper, it said only that “presented earlier this year at Canadian Association of Road Safety Professionals Conference”:
…In a small pilot study, researchers found—unsurprisingly—that drivers often fail to adequately scan for non-motorists when they turn right at intersections. Some participants don’t look long enough, while others don’t check at all.
Fake Bike Lanes
Fake bike lanes are edge lines when used on urban roads. They are generally not warranted per MUTCD and therefore should not be used — however (some) traffic engineers persist; see numerous examples, ADOT, City of Phoenix, City of Tempe and I’m sure many other places.
In any event, they present additional legal difficulties… an edge line is by definition the edge line on the right is by definition the edge of the roadway; irrespective of any curb.
A bicyclist who chooses to ride on a shoulder (in the “fake bike lane”) is not riding in the roadway. Who must yield to whom? For an example see case settled by Ohio bike lawyer steve magas in June 2019 involving a right-hook and a shoulder-riding bicyclist — insurers refused to pay for years because of it.
An interesting twist to this was codified recently for golf carts driving on the shoulder — the driver of the golf cart is explicitly required to yield to any right-turning traffic(! and see 28-777).
Odd BL Striping
Sometimes the striping can be downright perplexing, and only add to the confusion; as well as add to the possibility of right-hooks.
In this example, installed in early May 2017, the BL stripe formerly just ended ~ 200′ from the intersection, allowing traffic to naturally sort itself out according to destination. This is Central Ave Northbound at I-17, Maricopa Freeway.
Now the BL stripe is extended all the way to the intersection, and follows the (huge)curb radius. Large radii of course allow drivers to speed around the corners without, say, yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk. [Update: a few days later; so the later part of May 2017, the area was slurry sealed and yet another striping pattern was installed, the BL stripe is still extened to the intersection, but is now straight (doesn’t bend with the curb), and dotted (like a fast dash) ]
Oregon
From memory: Oregon has unusual definitions of Bicycle Lane in that they are not part of the roadway. As a result, it’s supposedly illegal to merge into a BL prior to turning. It’s also supposedly ironclad that an MV driver must yield to bicyclists in a BL when turning; in other words a right-hook by definition is the MV driver’s fault. Oregon also has a mandatory use of bike lane law (“MBL“), with no exception for right-hook avoidance.
The City of Portland has a long, rich, ongoing history of right-hooks in bike lanes:
https://bikeportland.org/2018/05/22/two-injury-right-hook-collisions-in-two-weeks-at-nw-broadway-and-hoyt-281966 with various mitigation strategies including lots of green paint and bike boxes.
Classic Bike Lane right-hook crash video
Excellent, instructive video on youtube, thanks to Reid Welch for posting; crash occurs at 0:14
.
Things I Have Learned About Cycling: Advice from a Bicycling Consultant
Excellent general article by Kirby Beck; in his role as an expert witness; the topic of right hooks (in this example it’s a left hook because of one-way streets; but the operation is the same) is featured prominently
One young man was commuting in a left-side bike lane on a busy one-way street on the south side of a large downtown area. He was enjoying a strong tailwind, his newly rebuilt single-speed bike, and the speed they brought him. He was apparently so tuned into his speed, and staying between the bike lane stripes, that he neglected to look ahead. When he finally noticed the heavily loaded semi turning across the bike lane in front of him, he applied his rear brake, skidded 31 feet and ran into the trailer’s rear set of tires. The tires rolled right over him. His relatives told the newspaper reporter he was a very safe cyclist! Not that day.
At intersections, bike lanes can be as dangerous, if not more so, than riding in the traffic lane. Cyclists in bike lanes are often hidden behind other vehicles and more vulnerable to turning cars – especially oncoming cars making left turns. Don’t trust your safety to paint! When necessary, move out of the bike lane and into the traffic lane. That will make you more visible, more relevant, and more predictable to other vehicles around you. It will force you to become part of traffic.
As in the previous example, it is more dangerous to operate in a bike lane when around large vehicles like buses, semi-tractor-trailers, and other trucks. NEVER ride alongside a bus or truck anywhere it may make a turn. This is especially true when you are tempted to pass one while in the bike lane. As visible as you may think you are, you may learn too late that you were not seen. When a truck or bus makes a right turn, it will trap a cyclist, leaving them with nowhere to go.
To avoid having their trailer track over curbs, pedestrians and waiting cars, 18-wheeler drivers start their turns much later into the intersection, doing what is called a buttonhook turn. Sometimes cyclists figure the truck really isn’t turning at all, so they continue toward the intersection. Too many cyclists have died making that mistake. Either stop and wait for the truck or bus to proceed through the intersection, even if you were ahead of it, or get in behind it and become a regular part of traffic. Those large conveyances are complex and their drivers have much more to watch out for and do than drivers of most other vehicles. Cyclists need to be extra cautious whenever they are around them.
What about Uber?
I think autonomously driving vehicles, including Uber, should follow the laws. The law in CA clearly requires that a driver move into a bike lane prior to turning. That being said, I doubt disobeying this CA law by an autonomously driven vehicle is a safety issue — they have sensors that “see” everything, in every direction, at all times, regardless of lighting conditions.
What about Google / Waymo?
So this is pretty straightforward (also see discussion of vidfeo on reddit):
According to the youtube, this is at California St and Rengstorff Ave, Mountain View, CA. As such as noted above is a flagrant violation of CVC 21717 concerning proper position for making a right turn. My recollection was google was aware of this and said they were programming (if that’s the right term) their cars to merge right into a BL when preparing for a right turn; of course I suppose it’s hard to know whether or not the car in the video is operating autonomously(?).
Engineering Guidance (#ite)
This from the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Traffic Control Devices Handbook, 2nd Edition:
Bike Lanes and Intersections
As noted in the section on bicycle crashes, most minor vehicle-bicycle crashes on roadways occur at intersections or driveways. Special attention should be given to proper design and channelization of bike lanes at intersections to allow for smooth and consistent traffic flow and to minimize unexpected conflicts.Bike lanes may complicate both bicycle and motor vehicle turning movements at intersections. Bike lanes encourage bicyclists to keep to the right and other road users to keep to the left, which may create problems at intersections. Some bicyclists may initiate left turns from the right-side bike lane, placing them in conflict with vehicles proceeding straight through the intersection. Some motorists will begin right turns from the travel lane to the left of the bike lane, placing through bicyclists in conflict with right turning vehicles, contrary to the established rules of the road .. Also, bike lanes can encourage bicyclists to overtake stopped vehicles on the right where drivers will not be expecting overtaking maneuvers. Intersections with free-flow turn lanes or ramps can further complicate intersections where bike lanes are present.
— ITE Traffic Control Devices Handbook, 2nd Edition / Chapter 14

On the subject of the how to handle striping at intersections, the ITE Handbook has a diagram of three choices (Fig 14-21: solid to intersection, discontinue / drop near intersection, or dotted near intersection, then they give this noncommittal advice, noting that the MUTCD illustrates (in MUTCD’s fig 9C-6) the dotted option:
Solid, Dotted or Dropped? …There has been quite a bit of discussion in the bicycle transportation community about which of these options is preferable at certain types of intersections, with some practitioners making strong arguments in favor of one or more treatments. Although all three types of markings have been in use for almost four decades, there has never been any formal research study to determine which of them is most effective at a specific type of intersection and at the time of writing of this Handbook, proposals to perform this research have not received funding. Therefore, no detailed guidance can be given at to exactly which marking style is “best,” and engineering judgement should be used to select an option that may be “best” for a specific situation.
— ITE Traffic Control Devices Handbook, 2nd Edition / Chapter 14
The MUTCD, as mentioned above by the ITE Handbook, has nothing explict in the body of the Bicycle Lane Markings section 9C-4 saying only that “Standard: Longitudinal pavement markings shall be used to define bicycle lanes.”; but does show the BL stripe becoming dotted 50 – 200′ from the intersection, see Figure 9C-6. Example of Pavement Markings for Bicycle Lanes on a Two-Way Street
Thanks to Dan G for parsing the CA laws.
: …
You are correct that bike lanes complicate intersections. They encourage right-turning motorists to stay left (until time to turn) and cyclists to stay right. Prescott has two roads (Prescott Lakes Pkwy. and Rosser St.) with bike lanes to the right of marked right turn lanes, in violation of MUTCD. These are also at the bottom of steep hills (7% grade) at the intersection with SR 89.
I’ve told the bike-ped committee about this and I think the city engineer plans to move the bike lanes but he plans to wait until the roads are re-paved. A mitigating factor is the hills are so steep, few people bike there. But it is still no excuse for the road layout.
There are other places in Prescott with bike lanes on steep hills with the stripes carried into intersections. One of the worst is Willow Creek Road (6% grade). There are no right-turn only lanes so it does not violate MUTCD but it is still dangerous. A cyclist can easily coast at the 40 mph speed limit. The bike lanes are carried right into the intersections, which I call “coffin corners”. I am hoping to get the city to remove the stripes on the downhill side, replacing them with shared-lane markings.
— Fred
ITE stuff moved into body of article above.
In the always concise words of JF:
This was from a discussion thread about right-turn comparisons to the “Dutch system”
Pennsylvania laws has the usual, but adds a clause explicitly about not interfering with a bicyclist:
§ 3331. Required position and method of turning.
(a) Right turn.–The driver of a vehicle intending to turn right shall approach the turn and make the turn as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
…
(e) Interference with pedalcycles.–No turn by a driver of a motor vehicle shall interfere with a pedalcycle proceeding straight while operating in accordance with Chapter 35 (relating to special vehicles and pedestrians).
They also make clear bicyclists may use the shoulder:
§ 3505. Riding on roadways and pedalcycle paths.
(b) Operation on shoulder.–A pedalcycle may be operated on the shoulder of a highway and shall be operated in the same direction as required of vehicles operated on the roadway
Here’s a classic right hook involving a bike lane from Portland OR. Note that in OR, unlike just about everywhere else, BLs are not part of the roadway, and motorists are prohibited from driving in them in preparation for turning right; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YElnwWnEhU8 “Video from TriMet. The victim is Lane Werner.”
ph
Bike lanes don’t work to prevent right hooks, in fact they make right hooks more likely to happen.
The unfortunate answer upon finding that a bike lane fails to protect bicyclists from a right hook is a tendency to double-down on separate infrastructure — since bike lanes didn’t work, we must need “protected” bike lanes.
A recent (late 2017) couple of right-hooks with large trucks, one fatal, then another a couple weeks later in Philadelphia on low-speed, narrow/constrained, downtown streets:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/protest-cyclist-struck-center-city-bike-lanes-20171216.html
The City of Portland has a long, rich history of right-hooks:
https://bikeportland.org/2018/05/22/two-injury-right-hook-collisions-in-two-weeks-at-nw-broadway-and-hoyt-281966
Answer Man: Should motorist yield to bicyclist in bike lane?
John Boyle, Asheville Citizen Times Published 12:42 p.m. ET Aug. 29, 2018
Question: I recently got into a rather heated conflict with a bicyclist. By the way, I also ride a bicycle. I was driving my car on a street where there is an established bicycle lane. A cyclist was behind me, and I was making a right-hand turn into a business. We came very close to a collision when he tried to pass me in the bike lane on the right-hand side. He immediately got in my face and told me that as a cyclist, where there is an established bicycling lane, he has the right of way. I told him that the rules of the road apply to all individuals regardless of the mode of transportation. Could the Answer Man please settle this disagreement, and in doing so perhaps increase safety on our roads?
Answer:
I went to Mike Sule with the advocacy group Asheville on Bikes for clarification.
“Motorists making a right turning movement are required to yield to bicyclists who are traveling through in the bike lane,” Sule said. “Approaching intersections, bike lane are perforated so motorists can merge over behind the through movement of bicyclists. Motorists should not attempt to overtake a cyclist’s through movement in a bike lane.”
In short, yield to the cyclist.
I also checked with the Asheville Police Department, and officer Meg Donahue with the Traffic Safety Unit cited North Carolina General Statute 20-150.1, “When passing on the right is permitted.”
Her explanation backs up what Sule said.
“Although the statute does not specifically mention bike lanes, they should be considered a separate travel lane,” Donahue said. “However, APD encourages caution if you are in a bike lane passing cars on the right.”…
“Motorists turning right toward you or left across your path, and cars entering the road from parking lots or driveways, have an obligation to look for bicycles in the bike lane and merge right when it is safe to do so, but may drivers neglect to do so,” Donahue said. “We encourage cyclists to be aware of this and keep a careful lookout. We also encourage motorists to be on the lookout for cyclists and adhere to these laws.”
Below is an email i received from a motorist who was right-hooked by another motorist. A little background, Green Valley AZ is an unincorporated place (thus the county, and sheriff); where they have extra-wide, perhaps 7′ from curb to stripe, Bike and golf cart combo-lanes.
Here is a representative intersection along La Canada Drive.
And here is a bit of a surprising update!
classic right hook fatality Denver CO; low speed / dump truck
https://www.facebook.com/groups/SupportersOfFullLaneRightsForBicyclists/permalink/2314808425273432/
https://kdvr.com/2019/07/25/debate-about-safer-bike-lanes-in-denver-grows-after-cyclist-struck-killed-by-vehicle/
Philadelphia PA; victim Emily Fredricks; involved a bike lane and a trash truck turning right from Spruce Street onto 11th Street:
https://www.phillymag.com/news/2019/08/16/bicylists-appeal-emily-fredricks/
Incidentally, resulted in a $6Million settlement against the trucking company.
on the topic of statistics for PEDESTRIAN right-hook fatalities… (the comment just below this one has some stats for bicyclist right-hooks)
PEDSNR (scenario) should be most accurate; and do seem to track appropriate crash types, just below. (7a,b,c,d; also arguably 8a,b,c,d).
PEDCTYPEs applicable are:
791=’Motorist Right Turn – Parallel Paths’ And
792=’Motorist Right Turn on Red – Parallel Paths’
Results are about mid-40s per year; so less than 1% of all Ped fatals; and as expected are nearly all ‘urban’.
The more complicated query joins the incident table in order to get urban/rural, and need person table to get injury severity (because not all persons in PBType are fatalities); but the simpler queries are very close…
the PBType table contains a row for each ped or bicyclist involved in a fatal collision, and as such contains mostly fatally injured people but a few incidentally involved who were not killed.
The more complicated query joins the incident table in order to get urban/rural, and need person table to get injury severity (because not all persons in PBType are fatalities); but the simpler queries are very close…
the PBType table contains a row for each ped or bicyclist involved in a fatal collision, and as such contains mostly fatally injured people but a few incidentally involved who were not killed.
SOME STATISTICS:
Cross and Fisher 1977;, were categorized as Class F: Motorist unexpected turn / Type 24: Motorist unexpected right turn; parallel paths 5.6%/1.8% ( of 753 Serious injuries / of 166 fatalities); noting that, my emphasis: “EVERY accident of this type occurred in an urban area.”
Ken Cross in an earlier study presented in 1974 describes right-hooks as “Motorist made improper right turn” with five sub-types broken down in Figure 13. They account for overall 11% of the 384 crash sample.
FARS ; so Fatal only… how many right hook fatals are there?
The obvious BIKECTYPE for a classic right hook is:
213 Motorist Right Turn – Same Direction
There’s another on that might be involved, but only a very small number (usually 1)
217 Motorist Right Turn on Red – Same Direction
And anyway, probably doesn’t qualify as a “classic” right hook; it likely involves a crosswalk bicyclist going perpendicular to the motorist.
There are only a limited number; typically between 10 and 20 looking over the years for which pbtype is available. This would be something like 2% of all bicyclist fatalities. slightly more if just looking at urban only, of course.
OF THE 4 ARIZONA right-hooks I know happened, one in Gilbert, and the others in Tucson — the crash typing on three of the 4 (they occured from 2013 to 2017) correctly have Motorist Right Turn – Same direction’; inexplicably the fourth incident says other/unknown.
Detailed “videogrammetry” video of right hook w/garbage truck at urban intersection.
https://www.forensicdjs.com/blog/surveillance-cameras-inside-looking-out/
I got right-hooked on my bicycle today. Fortunately, I was going pretty slow so neither my body nor my bike got banged up too bad. I am very cautious when approaching an intersection with a bike lane but no right turn lane. This time I was unlucky. The incident prompted me to go to the internet to make sure I wasn’t at fault, and I found this article.
Thanks for all the great information!
Right-hook and bike lanes: NYTimes columnist Jane Brody “personal health” writes
“…In just the last eight months, I’ve had two cycling accidents when inattentive drivers made right turns and cut me off. So far I’ve been lucky, escaping with bloody scrapes and a bent bike wheel…”
one, in a classic ‘protected’ bike lane:
“The relatively new Brooklyn bike lane I was on, like many others, runs between a curb on the right and parked cars on the left. Cars traveling to the left of the parked vehicles have no clear view of what may be coming along in the bike lane, and cyclists in that lane have limited ability to see a driver who turns right and fails to slow down enough to avoid a collision.”
Specific situations when can you drive in a bike lane to keep yourself safe and prevent road accidents: when you intend to park in a permitted area, you are entering or exiting a road or you are within 200 feet of the area you intend to turn,…Bike lanes are important because it gives drivers and cyclists exclusive space when on the road, there is a fat chance that accidents and road injuries can be significantly reduced.
If there is a designated space for bikers and motorists, there is a fat chance that accidents and road injuries can be significantly reduced.
Possible bike lane / right hook fatal collision involving a bicyclists and a large truck (garbage truck)
UC Davis campus
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article261801212.html
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/student-dies-following-traffic-collision
says “struck by the truck at the junction of Dairy Road and Hutchison Drive“
graphic pointing out that separated bike lanes (often called “protected” bike lanes, and/or cycle tracks) don’t solve the right-hook problem — in fact sight lines may even exacerbate it.
https://twitter.com/DanSull36510584/status/1536162645237190656/photo/1
is this image static?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVGLwcjWUAA7frA?format=jpg&name=medium